Keira Connolly's banner

Keira Connolly

@keira_con • 21,751 subscribers

If I don’t wake up, remember the laughs. Until then, Halloween needs a troublemaker, Christmas needs supervising, and the cats still owe me rent. 😂🐾

Shorts

I would not wish ill health or death on anyone, including my enemies, unless I was genuinely in mortal fear for my own life. But let's be straight about this. Politicians can post their deepest sympathies, families can insist they were “good boys”, and social media can produce all the usual excuses. None of that means the rest of us have to rewrite reality. Driving a car at high speed the wrong way down a motorway, knowing innocent people could be coming towards you at 120 km/h, isn't normal driving and it isn't some innocent mistake. It is an extraordinarily reckless decision that could have killed an entirely innocent family. Does that mean I think they deserved to die? No. Do I take pleasure in their deaths? No. But I'm also not going to pretend that people repeatedly involved in serious criminality are “little angels” simply because they're dead. If the newspaper reports about their previous activities and encounters with Gardaí are accurate, they were far from angels. They were thugs whose behaviour should have resulted in meaningful intervention long before things reached this point. And yes, I'll use another unfashionable expression: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Not because I'm celebrating anybody's death, but because repeatedly choosing extreme risk, violence and criminality eventually has consequences. Tragically, sometimes those consequences are irreversible. Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I'm becoming intolerant. But when I was growing up, there were consequences for our actions. Thankfully my parents never hit me, but discipline existed. We got the rod in school I can still remember it drying beside the paraffin heater and the strap was used in secondary school, although I missed most of that. I'm not suggesting we start beating children again. But where exactly did we go from discipline and personal responsibility to being terrified of telling children NO? When did participation become more important than achievement? When did allowing children to run around shops and restaurants like little maniacs become enlightened parenting? When I was young, if you behaved like that, your parents dealt with you. You quickly learned that other people existed and that your behaviour affected them. Manners and respect are free commodities. When I hear children telling their own parents to “f*** off”, I wonder what they're going to be like as adults. If that's the respect they have for the people who brought them into the world, fed them, clothed them and cared for them, what respect are they going to have for a teacher, Garda, employer or complete stranger? Then we wonder why workplaces increasingly need chill-out spaces and “mental health days” because ordinary pressures become too much. In my day we respected our bosses, did the job we were employed to do and were happy to have a job. Yes, society has changed, and some of those changes were unquestionably for the better. But removing consequences wasn't one of them. And I'm going to use another expression that will undoubtedly upset people: Feral scumbags. Because when young people are repeatedly stealing cars, carrying knives or machetes, attacking people and terrorising neighbourhoods, I'm considerably more interested in protecting their victims than finding another fashionable euphemism for their behaviour. And yes, perhaps we need to discuss bringing back industrial schools. Before somebody deliberately misunderstands that sentence, I don't mean resurrecting the religious institutions, brutality or abuse associated with parts of that system. I mean the basic principle of removing persistent young offenders from the streets and putting them into secure residential institutions with discipline, education, vocational training and consequences. If you're 16 or 17 and repeatedly terrorising a community, perhaps knowing that you're facing several years in a secure institution followed by the adult criminal justice system if you continue offending after 18 might make you think twice. Because whatever we're doing now clearly isn't frightening some of these young offenders. Young lads can apparently parade knives and machetes on social media as though they're fashion accessories. Communities are terrorised. People accumulate conviction after conviction. And I have seen an example of the attitude I'm talking about with my own eyes. I had reason to attend court in Loughrea, Co. Galway, around this time last year. There were three young offenders in the dock, one of them flanked by two prison officers. I was sitting in the public gallery immediately behind the legal teams. When this individual spotted me, he apparently decided that making disparaging remarks about me would be great entertainment. He laughed. He jeered. It was all great craic. What struck me particularly was how relaxed the whole thing appeared. He was joking with the prison officers beside him and, from where I was sitting, they appeared to be laughing along with some of it. The judge lost patience with him on two occasions. It didn't appear to bother him in the slightest. I obviously cannot know what was going through his head, but the impression he gave me was that he believed he was untouchable. What stayed with me wasn't the insults themselves. I've heard considerably worse. It was the complete lack of respect for the court, the judge and everyone around him. When the court adjourned for lunch, I couldn't resist a little dig of my own: “Where are we going for lunch? I really fancy a steak. I wonder what the prisoners get?” That wiped away some of the laughter. His response was to start shouting abuse at me, including calling me a “f*ing f**t”. Charming. I walked away thinking that if somebody can stand in a courtroom, in front of a judge, flanked by prison officers, and still behave as though the entire proceedings are a joke, what exactly is supposed to deter him when he's back outside? I doubt that scene was unique to one courtroom in Galway. And everybody waits for the inevitable tragedy. Then, when it finally happens, politicians express shock and sympathy and everyone asks how this could possibly have happened. Perhaps we should start asking that question before somebody dies. Call me old-fashioned. Call me intolerant. Call me whatever you like. I believe in manners. I believe in respect. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in rehabilitation. And I believe in consequences. Because allowing feral scumbags to terrorise communities without meaningful consequences isn't compassion. It's abandoning their victims and ultimately abandoning the offenders themselves. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's an old saying for a reason.

I would not wish ill health or death on anyone, including my enemies, unless I was genuinely in mortal fear for my own life. But let's be straight about this. Politicians can post their deepest sympathies, families can insist they were “good boys”, and social media can produce all the usual excuses. None of that means the rest of us have to rewrite reality. Driving a car at high speed the wrong way down a motorway, knowing innocent people could be coming towards you at 120 km/h, isn't normal driving and it isn't some innocent mistake. It is an extraordinarily reckless decision that could have killed an entirely innocent family. Does that mean I think they deserved to die? No. Do I take pleasure in their deaths? No. But I'm also not going to pretend that people repeatedly involved in serious criminality are “little angels” simply because they're dead. If the newspaper reports about their previous activities and encounters with Gardaí are accurate, they were far from angels. They were thugs whose behaviour should have resulted in meaningful intervention long before things reached this point. And yes, I'll use another unfashionable expression: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Not because I'm celebrating anybody's death, but because repeatedly choosing extreme risk, violence and criminality eventually has consequences. Tragically, sometimes those consequences are irreversible. Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I'm becoming intolerant. But when I was growing up, there were consequences for our actions. Thankfully my parents never hit me, but discipline existed. We got the rod in school I can still remember it drying beside the paraffin heater and the strap was used in secondary school, although I missed most of that. I'm not suggesting we start beating children again. But where exactly did we go from discipline and personal responsibility to being terrified of telling children NO? When did participation become more important than achievement? When did allowing children to run around shops and restaurants like little maniacs become enlightened parenting? When I was young, if you behaved like that, your parents dealt with you. You quickly learned that other people existed and that your behaviour affected them. Manners and respect are free commodities. When I hear children telling their own parents to “f*** off”, I wonder what they're going to be like as adults. If that's the respect they have for the people who brought them into the world, fed them, clothed them and cared for them, what respect are they going to have for a teacher, Garda, employer or complete stranger? Then we wonder why workplaces increasingly need chill-out spaces and “mental health days” because ordinary pressures become too much. In my day we respected our bosses, did the job we were employed to do and were happy to have a job. Yes, society has changed, and some of those changes were unquestionably for the better. But removing consequences wasn't one of them. And I'm going to use another expression that will undoubtedly upset people: Feral scumbags. Because when young people are repeatedly stealing cars, carrying knives or machetes, attacking people and terrorising neighbourhoods, I'm considerably more interested in protecting their victims than finding another fashionable euphemism for their behaviour. And yes, perhaps we need to discuss bringing back industrial schools. Before somebody deliberately misunderstands that sentence, I don't mean resurrecting the religious institutions, brutality or abuse associated with parts of that system. I mean the basic principle of removing persistent young offenders from the streets and putting them into secure residential institutions with discipline, education, vocational training and consequences. If you're 16 or 17 and repeatedly terrorising a community, perhaps knowing that you're facing several years in a secure institution followed by the adult criminal justice system if you continue offending after 18 might make you think twice. Because whatever we're doing now clearly isn't frightening some of these young offenders. Young lads can apparently parade knives and machetes on social media as though they're fashion accessories. Communities are terrorised. People accumulate conviction after conviction. And I have seen an example of the attitude I'm talking about with my own eyes. I had reason to attend court in Loughrea, Co. Galway, around this time last year. There were three young offenders in the dock, one of them flanked by two prison officers. I was sitting in the public gallery immediately behind the legal teams. When this individual spotted me, he apparently decided that making disparaging remarks about me would be great entertainment. He laughed. He jeered. It was all great craic. What struck me particularly was how relaxed the whole thing appeared. He was joking with the prison officers beside him and, from where I was sitting, they appeared to be laughing along with some of it. The judge lost patience with him on two occasions. It didn't appear to bother him in the slightest. I obviously cannot know what was going through his head, but the impression he gave me was that he believed he was untouchable. What stayed with me wasn't the insults themselves. I've heard considerably worse. It was the complete lack of respect for the court, the judge and everyone around him. When the court adjourned for lunch, I couldn't resist a little dig of my own: “Where are we going for lunch? I really fancy a steak. I wonder what the prisoners get?” That wiped away some of the laughter. His response was to start shouting abuse at me, including calling me a “f*ing f**t”. Charming. I walked away thinking that if somebody can stand in a courtroom, in front of a judge, flanked by prison officers, and still behave as though the entire proceedings are a joke, what exactly is supposed to deter him when he's back outside? I doubt that scene was unique to one courtroom in Galway. And everybody waits for the inevitable tragedy. Then, when it finally happens, politicians express shock and sympathy and everyone asks how this could possibly have happened. Perhaps we should start asking that question before somebody dies. Call me old-fashioned. Call me intolerant. Call me whatever you like. I believe in manners. I believe in respect. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in rehabilitation. And I believe in consequences. Because allowing feral scumbags to terrorise communities without meaningful consequences isn't compassion. It's abandoning their victims and ultimately abandoning the offenders themselves. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's an old saying for a reason.

151,860 Aufrufe

An Open Letter to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan TD Dublin, 12 September 2026 and the Middle East, April 2024. Different locations, but the same calculated spectacle: the public burning of the American flag. Such scenes have long been associated with hostile anti-American demonstrations and extremist movements abroad. How did this conduct become normalised on the streets of Ireland during a visit by the President of the United States? Minister, This is not about whether people are entitled to oppose President Donald Trump, criticise American foreign policy or demonstrate against the United States. They plainly are. Nor is it a demand that offensive political expression be prohibited merely because many people find it repugnant. It concerns what happened when members of a masked political organisation set an American flag alight in the middle of a crowded Dublin demonstration and whether the State applied the same public-order, fire-safety and criminal-law standards that would govern any other protest. The Dublin demonstration The Irish Times reported that members of Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland appeared as a masked breakaway group dressed in black clothing and dark glasses. According to that report, the group burned an American flag, set off firecrackers, chanted against the presence of US troops at Shannon and used militant republican slogans before dispersing. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland subsequently stated on its own X account that its members had attended the anti-Trump protest in Dublin city centre. Its post included video footage apparently showing the flag burning. This is therefore not an unattributed image or an unsupported social-media rumour. The organisation publicly placed its members at the demonstration and circulated footage of the incident. Burning a flag as an act of political expression is one question. Deliberately setting an object alight and discharging firecrackers within a tightly packed public gathering raise additional questions about public safety and public-order policing. Was the person responsible identified? Was an investigation opened? Did Gardaí assess whether members of the public were endangered? A developing pattern This incident cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. On 29 August 2026, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland publicly claimed that its members had spray-painted the entrance of the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. The door and porch were marked with anti-NATO slogans and the organisation’s initials shortly before the building was due to host NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska. That was not merely disagreement expressed through speeches, placards or lawful assembly. It was the deliberate defacement of property associated with an event the organisation opposed. The organisation has also been publicly associated with other destructive or confrontational actions involving political symbols and buildings, including the burning of flags and remembrance material, the defacement of the Royal British Legion’s Dublin headquarters and the painting-over of street signs bearing Queen Victoria’s name. These incidents display a recurring method: masked participants, militant republican imagery, the destruction of political symbols and direct action against property connected with organisations or events they oppose. Paramilitary-style presentation Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland should not casually be described as “the IRA.” The Provisional IRA is a specific unlawful organisation. AIA is a separate socialist-republican organisation founded in 2017, and I have seen no evidence establishing that AIA is itself proscribed or engaged in an armed campaign. Nevertheless, its conduct and presentation warrant serious examination. Masks, black clothing, dark glasses, disciplined group formations and militant republican language create an unmistakably paramilitary-style appearance. The organisation invokes revolutionary republican traditions, rejects the Good Friday Agreement and uses language centred upon “resistance” to institutions it describes as imperialist. That visual and rhetorical presentation appears calculated to evoke continuity with militant republicanism. It does not prove terrorism or membership of an unlawful organisation, but neither should the State pretend that the resemblance is accidental or meaningless. Political beliefs—even extreme and deeply offensive ones are protected. Criminal damage, unlawful entry, intimidation and conduct endangering the public are not transformed into protected expression merely because those responsible call them political protest. Symbols associated with terrorist organisations There is a further and increasingly disturbing context. People have been filmed walking openly through Dublin carrying flags and wearing banners or headbands apparently displaying insignia associated with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas appears on the European Union’s terrorist list. In Hezbollah’s case, the EU designation applies specifically to its military wing. These legal distinctions matter. Displaying a flag does not, by itself, prove that its carrier is a member of, or providing material support to, either organisation. Nevertheless, these are not neutral emblems of Palestinian identity or ordinary criticism of Israeli policy. They are symbols associated with organisations involved in political violence and included within the European Union’s counterterrorism framework. Their increasingly open display in Dublin alongside masked political formations, firecrackers, flag burning and repeated property defacement raises legitimate public-order and national-security questions. The issue is not whether Gardaí should arrest someone merely for carrying an offensive flag. It is whether the symbols were correctly identified, whether the surrounding conduct crossed any criminal threshold and whether Garda intelligence is examining possible recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support. A domestic legal question Ireland does not appear to have separately designated Hamas or Hezbollah as unlawful organisations under the domestic Offences Against the State framework, despite being bound by the European Union’s terrorist-list and financial-sanctions regime. If that understanding is incorrect, the Minister should identify the applicable domestic designation and explain its practical effect. If it is correct, another question arises: what legal consequences follow when symbols apparently associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations are displayed openly on Irish streets? Ireland should have a clear legal and operational framework for distinguishing merely offensive expression from conduct indicating recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material assistance. If Ireland relies upon EU designations for financial sanctions but has not separately designated these organisations under domestic law, the Minister should explain why and whether that distinction leaves any enforcement gap. The public is entitled to know whether Gardaí possess the powers, training and guidance necessary to respond appropriately when symbols associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations appear openly at demonstrations in Dublin. Questions requiring answers I therefore ask the Minister: • Did An Garda Síochána witness or receive reports of the American flag being burned in Dublin on 12 September? • Was the person who set the flag alight identified? • Were the discharge of firecrackers and the lighting of a fire within a crowded demonstration assessed as public-safety or public-order matters? • Were any arrests made, statements taken or investigations opened? • Did Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland notify Gardaí that its members would attend as an organised group? • Has the defacement of the IIEA building been investigated, and have any suspects been identified? • Have previous acts of property defacement publicly claimed by the organisation resulted in investigation, prosecution or sanction? • Has An Garda Síochána assessed whether AIA has any organisational, financial or personnel connections with an unlawful organisation? • Are its masked formations and repeated direct actions being monitored for possible escalation? • Have Gardaí authenticated footage apparently showing Hamas and Hezbollah symbols being displayed in Dublin? • Is there any evidence of recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support connected with these displays? • What guidance is provided to Gardaí for distinguishing offensive but lawful expression from conduct amounting to support for terrorism? • Does the Minister believe that existing public-order, criminal-damage and counterterrorism legislation is adequate and being applied consistently? I recognise that the Minister cannot direct individual Garda investigations. Nevertheless, the Minister is responsible for justice policy and may seek assurances that the law is adequate and being applied consistently. The issue for Ireland The comparison between Dublin in September 2026 and the Middle East in April 2024 is not intended to suggest that everyone who burns an American flag is a terrorist. It demonstrates something more precise: a confrontational spectacle strongly associated with hostile anti-American movements abroad was deliberately reproduced in Ireland during a presidential visit. Ireland can protect robust political expression without becoming indifferent to organised groups concealing their identities, adopting paramilitary-style presentation, damaging property or introducing fire and firecrackers into crowded demonstrations. The question is not whether these people are entitled to dislike America, NATO or President Trump. The question is whether the State distinguishes clearly between lawful protest and dangerous or destructive conduct and whether that distinction is enforced equally, regardless of the political ideology involved. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland has publicly placed its members at the Dublin protest and circulated footage apparently showing the flag burning. It has also claimed responsibility for defacing the IIEA entrance. The State should now explain what action, if any, followed these incidents and whether Ireland’s laws are adequate to address an organised pattern of masked, confrontational and destructive political activity. Silence is not an adequate public response. Keira Connolly

An Open Letter to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan TD Dublin, 12 September 2026 and the Middle East, April 2024. Different locations, but the same calculated spectacle: the public burning of the American flag. Such scenes have long been associated with hostile anti-American demonstrations and extremist movements abroad. How did this conduct become normalised on the streets of Ireland during a visit by the President of the United States? Minister, This is not about whether people are entitled to oppose President Donald Trump, criticise American foreign policy or demonstrate against the United States. They plainly are. Nor is it a demand that offensive political expression be prohibited merely because many people find it repugnant. It concerns what happened when members of a masked political organisation set an American flag alight in the middle of a crowded Dublin demonstration and whether the State applied the same public-order, fire-safety and criminal-law standards that would govern any other protest. The Dublin demonstration The Irish Times reported that members of Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland appeared as a masked breakaway group dressed in black clothing and dark glasses. According to that report, the group burned an American flag, set off firecrackers, chanted against the presence of US troops at Shannon and used militant republican slogans before dispersing. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland subsequently stated on its own X account that its members had attended the anti-Trump protest in Dublin city centre. Its post included video footage apparently showing the flag burning. This is therefore not an unattributed image or an unsupported social-media rumour. The organisation publicly placed its members at the demonstration and circulated footage of the incident. Burning a flag as an act of political expression is one question. Deliberately setting an object alight and discharging firecrackers within a tightly packed public gathering raise additional questions about public safety and public-order policing. Was the person responsible identified? Was an investigation opened? Did Gardaí assess whether members of the public were endangered? A developing pattern This incident cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. On 29 August 2026, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland publicly claimed that its members had spray-painted the entrance of the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. The door and porch were marked with anti-NATO slogans and the organisation’s initials shortly before the building was due to host NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska. That was not merely disagreement expressed through speeches, placards or lawful assembly. It was the deliberate defacement of property associated with an event the organisation opposed. The organisation has also been publicly associated with other destructive or confrontational actions involving political symbols and buildings, including the burning of flags and remembrance material, the defacement of the Royal British Legion’s Dublin headquarters and the painting-over of street signs bearing Queen Victoria’s name. These incidents display a recurring method: masked participants, militant republican imagery, the destruction of political symbols and direct action against property connected with organisations or events they oppose. Paramilitary-style presentation Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland should not casually be described as “the IRA.” The Provisional IRA is a specific unlawful organisation. AIA is a separate socialist-republican organisation founded in 2017, and I have seen no evidence establishing that AIA is itself proscribed or engaged in an armed campaign. Nevertheless, its conduct and presentation warrant serious examination. Masks, black clothing, dark glasses, disciplined group formations and militant republican language create an unmistakably paramilitary-style appearance. The organisation invokes revolutionary republican traditions, rejects the Good Friday Agreement and uses language centred upon “resistance” to institutions it describes as imperialist. That visual and rhetorical presentation appears calculated to evoke continuity with militant republicanism. It does not prove terrorism or membership of an unlawful organisation, but neither should the State pretend that the resemblance is accidental or meaningless. Political beliefs—even extreme and deeply offensive ones are protected. Criminal damage, unlawful entry, intimidation and conduct endangering the public are not transformed into protected expression merely because those responsible call them political protest. Symbols associated with terrorist organisations There is a further and increasingly disturbing context. People have been filmed walking openly through Dublin carrying flags and wearing banners or headbands apparently displaying insignia associated with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas appears on the European Union’s terrorist list. In Hezbollah’s case, the EU designation applies specifically to its military wing. These legal distinctions matter. Displaying a flag does not, by itself, prove that its carrier is a member of, or providing material support to, either organisation. Nevertheless, these are not neutral emblems of Palestinian identity or ordinary criticism of Israeli policy. They are symbols associated with organisations involved in political violence and included within the European Union’s counterterrorism framework. Their increasingly open display in Dublin alongside masked political formations, firecrackers, flag burning and repeated property defacement raises legitimate public-order and national-security questions. The issue is not whether Gardaí should arrest someone merely for carrying an offensive flag. It is whether the symbols were correctly identified, whether the surrounding conduct crossed any criminal threshold and whether Garda intelligence is examining possible recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support. A domestic legal question Ireland does not appear to have separately designated Hamas or Hezbollah as unlawful organisations under the domestic Offences Against the State framework, despite being bound by the European Union’s terrorist-list and financial-sanctions regime. If that understanding is incorrect, the Minister should identify the applicable domestic designation and explain its practical effect. If it is correct, another question arises: what legal consequences follow when symbols apparently associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations are displayed openly on Irish streets? Ireland should have a clear legal and operational framework for distinguishing merely offensive expression from conduct indicating recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material assistance. If Ireland relies upon EU designations for financial sanctions but has not separately designated these organisations under domestic law, the Minister should explain why and whether that distinction leaves any enforcement gap. The public is entitled to know whether Gardaí possess the powers, training and guidance necessary to respond appropriately when symbols associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations appear openly at demonstrations in Dublin. Questions requiring answers I therefore ask the Minister: • Did An Garda Síochána witness or receive reports of the American flag being burned in Dublin on 12 September? • Was the person who set the flag alight identified? • Were the discharge of firecrackers and the lighting of a fire within a crowded demonstration assessed as public-safety or public-order matters? • Were any arrests made, statements taken or investigations opened? • Did Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland notify Gardaí that its members would attend as an organised group? • Has the defacement of the IIEA building been investigated, and have any suspects been identified? • Have previous acts of property defacement publicly claimed by the organisation resulted in investigation, prosecution or sanction? • Has An Garda Síochána assessed whether AIA has any organisational, financial or personnel connections with an unlawful organisation? • Are its masked formations and repeated direct actions being monitored for possible escalation? • Have Gardaí authenticated footage apparently showing Hamas and Hezbollah symbols being displayed in Dublin? • Is there any evidence of recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support connected with these displays? • What guidance is provided to Gardaí for distinguishing offensive but lawful expression from conduct amounting to support for terrorism? • Does the Minister believe that existing public-order, criminal-damage and counterterrorism legislation is adequate and being applied consistently? I recognise that the Minister cannot direct individual Garda investigations. Nevertheless, the Minister is responsible for justice policy and may seek assurances that the law is adequate and being applied consistently. The issue for Ireland The comparison between Dublin in September 2026 and the Middle East in April 2024 is not intended to suggest that everyone who burns an American flag is a terrorist. It demonstrates something more precise: a confrontational spectacle strongly associated with hostile anti-American movements abroad was deliberately reproduced in Ireland during a presidential visit. Ireland can protect robust political expression without becoming indifferent to organised groups concealing their identities, adopting paramilitary-style presentation, damaging property or introducing fire and firecrackers into crowded demonstrations. The question is not whether these people are entitled to dislike America, NATO or President Trump. The question is whether the State distinguishes clearly between lawful protest and dangerous or destructive conduct and whether that distinction is enforced equally, regardless of the political ideology involved. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland has publicly placed its members at the Dublin protest and circulated footage apparently showing the flag burning. It has also claimed responsibility for defacing the IIEA entrance. The State should now explain what action, if any, followed these incidents and whether Ireland’s laws are adequate to address an organised pattern of masked, confrontational and destructive political activity. Silence is not an adequate public response. Keira Connolly

12,812 Aufrufe

I don't think this is going to end soon they can lock lads up but there are many more to take their place it seems, I see the heavy plant is being used now. I suspect this is not going to end well sadly.

I don't think this is going to end soon they can lock lads up but there are many more to take their place it seems, I see the heavy plant is being used now. I suspect this is not going to end well sadly.

37,217 Aufrufe

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

I am getting sick and tired of stalkers and people with bad intentions. At around 2:15 a.m. last night, a man wearing a balaclava went underneath my car while it was parked outside my home. Needless to say, I'm not a happy camper. Nobody should have to wake up wondering why a masked individual was under their vehicle in the middle of the night. The footage has been saved, and if anyone has information that could help identify the person, I'd appreciate hearing from them. Incidents like this leave you questioning what someone's intentions were, and that's not something anyone should have to deal with.

I am getting sick and tired of stalkers and people with bad intentions. At around 2:15 a.m. last night, a man wearing a balaclava went underneath my car while it was parked outside my home. Needless to say, I'm not a happy camper. Nobody should have to wake up wondering why a masked individual was under their vehicle in the middle of the night. The footage has been saved, and if anyone has information that could help identify the person, I'd appreciate hearing from them. Incidents like this leave you questioning what someone's intentions were, and that's not something anyone should have to deal with.

297,428 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Kevin Sharkey is not holding back !, Is anything he said wrong, I would say very much on point, take a listen and decided yourself.

Kevin Sharkey is not holding back !, Is anything he said wrong, I would say very much on point, take a listen and decided yourself.

42,571 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

I would not wish ill health or death on anyone, including my enemies, unless I was genuinely in mortal fear for my own life. But let's be straight about this. Politicians can post their deepest sympathies, families can insist they were “good boys”, and social media can produce all the usual excuses. None of that means the rest of us have to rewrite reality. Driving a car at high speed the wrong way down a motorway, knowing innocent people could be coming towards you at 120 km/h, isn't normal driving and it isn't some innocent mistake. It is an extraordinarily reckless decision that could have killed an entirely innocent family. Does that mean I think they deserved to die? No. Do I take pleasure in their deaths? No. But I'm also not going to pretend that people repeatedly involved in serious criminality are “little angels” simply because they're dead. If the newspaper reports about their previous activities and encounters with Gardaí are accurate, they were far from angels. They were thugs whose behaviour should have resulted in meaningful intervention long before things reached this point. And yes, I'll use another unfashionable expression: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Not because I'm celebrating anybody's death, but because repeatedly choosing extreme risk, violence and criminality eventually has consequences. Tragically, sometimes those consequences are irreversible. Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I'm becoming intolerant. But when I was growing up, there were consequences for our actions. Thankfully my parents never hit me, but discipline existed. We got the rod in school I can still remember it drying beside the paraffin heater and the strap was used in secondary school, although I missed most of that. I'm not suggesting we start beating children again. But where exactly did we go from discipline and personal responsibility to being terrified of telling children NO? When did participation become more important than achievement? When did allowing children to run around shops and restaurants like little maniacs become enlightened parenting? When I was young, if you behaved like that, your parents dealt with you. You quickly learned that other people existed and that your behaviour affected them. Manners and respect are free commodities. When I hear children telling their own parents to “f*** off”, I wonder what they're going to be like as adults. If that's the respect they have for the people who brought them into the world, fed them, clothed them and cared for them, what respect are they going to have for a teacher, Garda, employer or complete stranger? Then we wonder why workplaces increasingly need chill-out spaces and “mental health days” because ordinary pressures become too much. In my day we respected our bosses, did the job we were employed to do and were happy to have a job. Yes, society has changed, and some of those changes were unquestionably for the better. But removing consequences wasn't one of them. And I'm going to use another expression that will undoubtedly upset people: Feral scumbags. Because when young people are repeatedly stealing cars, carrying knives or machetes, attacking people and terrorising neighbourhoods, I'm considerably more interested in protecting their victims than finding another fashionable euphemism for their behaviour. And yes, perhaps we need to discuss bringing back industrial schools. Before somebody deliberately misunderstands that sentence, I don't mean resurrecting the religious institutions, brutality or abuse associated with parts of that system. I mean the basic principle of removing persistent young offenders from the streets and putting them into secure residential institutions with discipline, education, vocational training and consequences. If you're 16 or 17 and repeatedly terrorising a community, perhaps knowing that you're facing several years in a secure institution followed by the adult criminal justice system if you continue offending after 18 might make you think twice. Because whatever we're doing now clearly isn't frightening some of these young offenders. Young lads can apparently parade knives and machetes on social media as though they're fashion accessories. Communities are terrorised. People accumulate conviction after conviction. And I have seen an example of the attitude I'm talking about with my own eyes. I had reason to attend court in Loughrea, Co. Galway, around this time last year. There were three young offenders in the dock, one of them flanked by two prison officers. I was sitting in the public gallery immediately behind the legal teams. When this individual spotted me, he apparently decided that making disparaging remarks about me would be great entertainment. He laughed. He jeered. It was all great craic. What struck me particularly was how relaxed the whole thing appeared. He was joking with the prison officers beside him and, from where I was sitting, they appeared to be laughing along with some of it. The judge lost patience with him on two occasions. It didn't appear to bother him in the slightest. I obviously cannot know what was going through his head, but the impression he gave me was that he believed he was untouchable. What stayed with me wasn't the insults themselves. I've heard considerably worse. It was the complete lack of respect for the court, the judge and everyone around him. When the court adjourned for lunch, I couldn't resist a little dig of my own: “Where are we going for lunch? I really fancy a steak. I wonder what the prisoners get?” That wiped away some of the laughter. His response was to start shouting abuse at me, including calling me a “f*ing f**t”. Charming. I walked away thinking that if somebody can stand in a courtroom, in front of a judge, flanked by prison officers, and still behave as though the entire proceedings are a joke, what exactly is supposed to deter him when he's back outside? I doubt that scene was unique to one courtroom in Galway. And everybody waits for the inevitable tragedy. Then, when it finally happens, politicians express shock and sympathy and everyone asks how this could possibly have happened. Perhaps we should start asking that question before somebody dies. Call me old-fashioned. Call me intolerant. Call me whatever you like. I believe in manners. I believe in respect. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in rehabilitation. And I believe in consequences. Because allowing feral scumbags to terrorise communities without meaningful consequences isn't compassion. It's abandoning their victims and ultimately abandoning the offenders themselves. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's an old saying for a reason.

I would not wish ill health or death on anyone, including my enemies, unless I was genuinely in mortal fear for my own life. But let's be straight about this. Politicians can post their deepest sympathies, families can insist they were “good boys”, and social media can produce all the usual excuses. None of that means the rest of us have to rewrite reality. Driving a car at high speed the wrong way down a motorway, knowing innocent people could be coming towards you at 120 km/h, isn't normal driving and it isn't some innocent mistake. It is an extraordinarily reckless decision that could have killed an entirely innocent family. Does that mean I think they deserved to die? No. Do I take pleasure in their deaths? No. But I'm also not going to pretend that people repeatedly involved in serious criminality are “little angels” simply because they're dead. If the newspaper reports about their previous activities and encounters with Gardaí are accurate, they were far from angels. They were thugs whose behaviour should have resulted in meaningful intervention long before things reached this point. And yes, I'll use another unfashionable expression: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Not because I'm celebrating anybody's death, but because repeatedly choosing extreme risk, violence and criminality eventually has consequences. Tragically, sometimes those consequences are irreversible. Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I'm becoming intolerant. But when I was growing up, there were consequences for our actions. Thankfully my parents never hit me, but discipline existed. We got the rod in school I can still remember it drying beside the paraffin heater and the strap was used in secondary school, although I missed most of that. I'm not suggesting we start beating children again. But where exactly did we go from discipline and personal responsibility to being terrified of telling children NO? When did participation become more important than achievement? When did allowing children to run around shops and restaurants like little maniacs become enlightened parenting? When I was young, if you behaved like that, your parents dealt with you. You quickly learned that other people existed and that your behaviour affected them. Manners and respect are free commodities. When I hear children telling their own parents to “f*** off”, I wonder what they're going to be like as adults. If that's the respect they have for the people who brought them into the world, fed them, clothed them and cared for them, what respect are they going to have for a teacher, Garda, employer or complete stranger? Then we wonder why workplaces increasingly need chill-out spaces and “mental health days” because ordinary pressures become too much. In my day we respected our bosses, did the job we were employed to do and were happy to have a job. Yes, society has changed, and some of those changes were unquestionably for the better. But removing consequences wasn't one of them. And I'm going to use another expression that will undoubtedly upset people: Feral scumbags. Because when young people are repeatedly stealing cars, carrying knives or machetes, attacking people and terrorising neighbourhoods, I'm considerably more interested in protecting their victims than finding another fashionable euphemism for their behaviour. And yes, perhaps we need to discuss bringing back industrial schools. Before somebody deliberately misunderstands that sentence, I don't mean resurrecting the religious institutions, brutality or abuse associated with parts of that system. I mean the basic principle of removing persistent young offenders from the streets and putting them into secure residential institutions with discipline, education, vocational training and consequences. If you're 16 or 17 and repeatedly terrorising a community, perhaps knowing that you're facing several years in a secure institution followed by the adult criminal justice system if you continue offending after 18 might make you think twice. Because whatever we're doing now clearly isn't frightening some of these young offenders. Young lads can apparently parade knives and machetes on social media as though they're fashion accessories. Communities are terrorised. People accumulate conviction after conviction. And I have seen an example of the attitude I'm talking about with my own eyes. I had reason to attend court in Loughrea, Co. Galway, around this time last year. There were three young offenders in the dock, one of them flanked by two prison officers. I was sitting in the public gallery immediately behind the legal teams. When this individual spotted me, he apparently decided that making disparaging remarks about me would be great entertainment. He laughed. He jeered. It was all great craic. What struck me particularly was how relaxed the whole thing appeared. He was joking with the prison officers beside him and, from where I was sitting, they appeared to be laughing along with some of it. The judge lost patience with him on two occasions. It didn't appear to bother him in the slightest. I obviously cannot know what was going through his head, but the impression he gave me was that he believed he was untouchable. What stayed with me wasn't the insults themselves. I've heard considerably worse. It was the complete lack of respect for the court, the judge and everyone around him. When the court adjourned for lunch, I couldn't resist a little dig of my own: “Where are we going for lunch? I really fancy a steak. I wonder what the prisoners get?” That wiped away some of the laughter. His response was to start shouting abuse at me, including calling me a “f*ing f**t”. Charming. I walked away thinking that if somebody can stand in a courtroom, in front of a judge, flanked by prison officers, and still behave as though the entire proceedings are a joke, what exactly is supposed to deter him when he's back outside? I doubt that scene was unique to one courtroom in Galway. And everybody waits for the inevitable tragedy. Then, when it finally happens, politicians express shock and sympathy and everyone asks how this could possibly have happened. Perhaps we should start asking that question before somebody dies. Call me old-fashioned. Call me intolerant. Call me whatever you like. I believe in manners. I believe in respect. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in rehabilitation. And I believe in consequences. Because allowing feral scumbags to terrorise communities without meaningful consequences isn't compassion. It's abandoning their victims and ultimately abandoning the offenders themselves. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's an old saying for a reason.

151,860 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Imagine having to put up with this everyday at work. A man goes home to Romania for three months and expects his dole money and rent money to be waiting for him when he gets back. Under EU law, a person from another EU country can move to another country 1. If they have enough money to support themselves and their families . 2. If they have health Insurance. 3. If they are seeking work they can stay in Ireland for three months but again they MUST have enough money to support themselves and their families and have health Insurance. 4. They can apply for an extension of another three months if they are looking for work. So the question is why is Ireland 1. Paying for housing for persons from other EU countries who failed to optain work. 2. Paying social welfare to persons who moved here from other EU countries for extended periods of time. Also bear in mind There is no automatic entitlement to access social welfare payments in Ireland as an Irish citizen. To qualify you will need to satisfy payment related criteria, and either have enough social insurance contributions, or satisfy the HRC "Habitual Residence Condition" and a means test in some cases. Yet this guy wants it all.

Imagine having to put up with this everyday at work. A man goes home to Romania for three months and expects his dole money and rent money to be waiting for him when he gets back. Under EU law, a person from another EU country can move to another country 1. If they have enough money to support themselves and their families . 2. If they have health Insurance. 3. If they are seeking work they can stay in Ireland for three months but again they MUST have enough money to support themselves and their families and have health Insurance. 4. They can apply for an extension of another three months if they are looking for work. So the question is why is Ireland 1. Paying for housing for persons from other EU countries who failed to optain work. 2. Paying social welfare to persons who moved here from other EU countries for extended periods of time. Also bear in mind There is no automatic entitlement to access social welfare payments in Ireland as an Irish citizen. To qualify you will need to satisfy payment related criteria, and either have enough social insurance contributions, or satisfy the HRC "Habitual Residence Condition" and a means test in some cases. Yet this guy wants it all.

818,115 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Fun times ahead for Ireland and All EU countries under the finger of the EU, Spend just under 2 minutes to watch this, it will put the hairs standing on you neck. When you consider news agencies and TV stations like RT were blocked in the EU this is just another level of control. No wonder EU want Ireland to enact the new hate Speech laws. As it is the NUJ did a deal with the UN that their members would not negativity report on migrants even if they committed crimes. Now The EU wants an extension of hate speech to include The criminalisation of migration speech, criticism of migration WILL become a criminal offense, Also Media outlets that give room to the "criticism of migration" can and will be shut down. The complex for migration is legalisation of mass migration

Fun times ahead for Ireland and All EU countries under the finger of the EU, Spend just under 2 minutes to watch this, it will put the hairs standing on you neck. When you consider news agencies and TV stations like RT were blocked in the EU this is just another level of control. No wonder EU want Ireland to enact the new hate Speech laws. As it is the NUJ did a deal with the UN that their members would not negativity report on migrants even if they committed crimes. Now The EU wants an extension of hate speech to include The criminalisation of migration speech, criticism of migration WILL become a criminal offense, Also Media outlets that give room to the "criticism of migration" can and will be shut down. The complex for migration is legalisation of mass migration

258,981 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Meet Richard Kamson. To his professional network on LinkedIn, he was the Social Media Manager for DNA Nightclub, a premier student venue in Galway City. Behind the scenes, however, his life took a drastically different turn. Kamson's escalating encounters with local law enforcement ranging from public order issues to a major €81,000 drug seizure ultimately pulling the young promoter from the nightlife scene and into the Galway Circuit Criminal Court. 🎥 May 2020: The Salthill Promenade Incident During a pandemic lockdown weekend, Kamson (then a teenager) was involved in a hostile physical altercation with An Garda Síochána on Salthill beach and the Promenade. The Aftermath: He posted an aggressive video rant targeting the guards on social media, which went viral and caused massive public backlash. The Apology & Court Outcome: He later deleted the video and issued a public apology on Galway Bay FM. Charged with public order and obstruction offenses, the court spared him jail due to his young age, clear record, and athletic potential, placing him on the Restorative Justice Programme instead. 🏠 September 2021: The RTB Eviction (Doughiska) Kamson’s ongoing anti-social behavior at his family's social housing apartment in Straith Fhada, Doughiska, resulted in severe consequences for his household. The Breaches: The landlord, Tuath Housing, issued multiple formal warnings regarding disruptions caused by Kamson. The Tribunal: Tuath ultimately issued a Notice of Termination. Kamson appealed the eviction, but the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal rejected his excuses, upheld the landlord's evidence of severe tenancy breaches, and legally confirmed the eviction, forcing his family out. ❄️ September 2021: The €81,000 Drug Raid Concurrently, a targeted Garda raid at the Doughiska apartment exposed Kamson's involvement in large-scale drug dealing. The Search: Gardaí executed a search warrant at his home and found quantities of drugs in his bedroom. The Woods: Kamson cooperated upon arrest and led officers to Merlin Park Woods, where two gear bags were unearthed. Forensic Science Ireland valued the total haul at €81,000 (€57,000 in cannabis and €24,000 in cocaine). ⚖️ March 2026: Court and Custody Remand Kamson appeared before Judge Brian O'Callaghan at the Galway Circuit Criminal Court, pleading guilty to possession of drugs for sale or supply. The Deception: His defense argued for leniency, presenting a probation report stating he was a low risk for reoffending. However, Gardaí strongly disputed this, revealing Kamson had actively come to their adverse attention for separate offenses while claiming to be rehabilitating. The Outcome: Stating that Kamson had misled both the court and the Probation Service, Judge O'Callaghan revoked his bail, remanded him in custody, and adjourned the final sentencing to demand updated, verified background reports. Richard Kamson pleaded guilty to charges under Section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, specifically the unlawful possession of controlled drugs (cocaine and cannabis) for the purpose of sale or supply. Because the financial valuation of the seized drugs reached approximately €81,000, his actions legally fall under the severe criteria of Section 15A of the Act, which dictates trafficking offenses exceeding a €13,000 threshold. 📅 Current Status and Court Updates His final sentencing hearing was formally adjourned by Judge Brian O'Callaghan until June 10, 2026, meaning his case was scheduled to return to the Galway Circuit Criminal Court yesterday. The Remand Status: Kamson spent the period leading up to June 10 held in custody after his bail was completely revoked in March.

Meet Richard Kamson. To his professional network on LinkedIn, he was the Social Media Manager for DNA Nightclub, a premier student venue in Galway City. Behind the scenes, however, his life took a drastically different turn. Kamson's escalating encounters with local law enforcement ranging from public order issues to a major €81,000 drug seizure ultimately pulling the young promoter from the nightlife scene and into the Galway Circuit Criminal Court. 🎥 May 2020: The Salthill Promenade Incident During a pandemic lockdown weekend, Kamson (then a teenager) was involved in a hostile physical altercation with An Garda Síochána on Salthill beach and the Promenade. The Aftermath: He posted an aggressive video rant targeting the guards on social media, which went viral and caused massive public backlash. The Apology & Court Outcome: He later deleted the video and issued a public apology on Galway Bay FM. Charged with public order and obstruction offenses, the court spared him jail due to his young age, clear record, and athletic potential, placing him on the Restorative Justice Programme instead. 🏠 September 2021: The RTB Eviction (Doughiska) Kamson’s ongoing anti-social behavior at his family's social housing apartment in Straith Fhada, Doughiska, resulted in severe consequences for his household. The Breaches: The landlord, Tuath Housing, issued multiple formal warnings regarding disruptions caused by Kamson. The Tribunal: Tuath ultimately issued a Notice of Termination. Kamson appealed the eviction, but the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal rejected his excuses, upheld the landlord's evidence of severe tenancy breaches, and legally confirmed the eviction, forcing his family out. ❄️ September 2021: The €81,000 Drug Raid Concurrently, a targeted Garda raid at the Doughiska apartment exposed Kamson's involvement in large-scale drug dealing. The Search: Gardaí executed a search warrant at his home and found quantities of drugs in his bedroom. The Woods: Kamson cooperated upon arrest and led officers to Merlin Park Woods, where two gear bags were unearthed. Forensic Science Ireland valued the total haul at €81,000 (€57,000 in cannabis and €24,000 in cocaine). ⚖️ March 2026: Court and Custody Remand Kamson appeared before Judge Brian O'Callaghan at the Galway Circuit Criminal Court, pleading guilty to possession of drugs for sale or supply. The Deception: His defense argued for leniency, presenting a probation report stating he was a low risk for reoffending. However, Gardaí strongly disputed this, revealing Kamson had actively come to their adverse attention for separate offenses while claiming to be rehabilitating. The Outcome: Stating that Kamson had misled both the court and the Probation Service, Judge O'Callaghan revoked his bail, remanded him in custody, and adjourned the final sentencing to demand updated, verified background reports. Richard Kamson pleaded guilty to charges under Section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, specifically the unlawful possession of controlled drugs (cocaine and cannabis) for the purpose of sale or supply. Because the financial valuation of the seized drugs reached approximately €81,000, his actions legally fall under the severe criteria of Section 15A of the Act, which dictates trafficking offenses exceeding a €13,000 threshold. 📅 Current Status and Court Updates His final sentencing hearing was formally adjourned by Judge Brian O'Callaghan until June 10, 2026, meaning his case was scheduled to return to the Galway Circuit Criminal Court yesterday. The Remand Status: Kamson spent the period leading up to June 10 held in custody after his bail was completely revoked in March.

81,107 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Never thought I’d see the Irish Government laying on a mobile car wash for the lefties. Two water cannons borrowed from Northern Ireland and a mobile detention truck — talk about the full-service package! On the plus side, some of the crusties might finally get a bath. The Irish Government are absolutely terrified of President Donald J. Trump. #WhosYourDaddy 😂

Never thought I’d see the Irish Government laying on a mobile car wash for the lefties. Two water cannons borrowed from Northern Ireland and a mobile detention truck — talk about the full-service package! On the plus side, some of the crusties might finally get a bath. The Irish Government are absolutely terrified of President Donald J. Trump. #WhosYourDaddy 😂

26,885 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Very small freak show in Doonbeg,

Very small freak show in Doonbeg,

25,523 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Anyone know what happened in Dublin ?

Anyone know what happened in Dublin ?

211,004 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨 The Helen Ogbu Timeline Scandal: Optics Over Truth When a news station gets your life story completely wrong, you correct it unless the mistake actively serves your political career. On February 11, 2025, Labour’s Mayor of Galway, Helen Ogbu, shared an African TV news report on her YouTube channel. Instead of correcting glaring factual errors, she celebrated the coverage. The Fake Mantra: The broadcast claimed she fled to Ireland as an immediate refugee directly following her husband Sunny's tragic assassination. The Real Motivation: Pre-edited campaign videos and websites deliberately combined her relocation with the 2010 murder to weaponise a tragic, emotive backstory for the by-election. ⏱️ The Real Timeline vs. The Campaign Myth 2001 (The Birth): Ogbu flew to Ireland heavily pregnant, delivered her daughter, and immediately flew back to Nigeria. Under the laws at the time, her daughter gained automatic Irish citizenship. 2004 (The Constitutional Impact): This exact legal pathway directly triggered the 27th Amendment of the Irish Constitution, where the Irish public voted overwhelmingly to abolish automatic birthright citizenship. 2005 (The Return): Ogbu returned to Ireland to claim asylum and establish residency. August 2010 (The Political Rally): Despite claiming she lived in permanent fear for her life in Nigeria, she flew back to Nigeria to attend a political campaign rally for her husband, Sunny. October 2010 (The Assassination): Sunny Orji-Ogbu was tragically assassinated in Nigeria five years after she had already settled her residency in Ireland. Late 2010 (The 4-Month Stay): Following the murder, she flew back to Nigeria a third time for the funeral and remained there for four months. 🔍 The Campaign Omission Why did Helen Ogbu and the Labour Party wipe the 2001 trip and her multiple returns to Nigeria completely from her official biography? Evading Political Sensitivity: Omitting 2001 allowed her to completely avoid public scrutiny regarding birthright citizenship and the 2004 referendum. Fabricating the Narrative: Rewriting history allowed her campaign to tell a seamless story linking her migration directly to her husband's death. When exposed, Labour tried to blame a "typo" by a volunteer activist. But Ogbu admitted on the radio she knew about the errors "last year". This wasn’t a mistake it was a calculated political decision to let a useful fiction travel faster than the truth. #GalwayPolitics #HelenOgbu #LabourParty #FactCheck #IrishPolitics #Accountability

🚨 The Helen Ogbu Timeline Scandal: Optics Over Truth When a news station gets your life story completely wrong, you correct it unless the mistake actively serves your political career. On February 11, 2025, Labour’s Mayor of Galway, Helen Ogbu, shared an African TV news report on her YouTube channel. Instead of correcting glaring factual errors, she celebrated the coverage. The Fake Mantra: The broadcast claimed she fled to Ireland as an immediate refugee directly following her husband Sunny's tragic assassination. The Real Motivation: Pre-edited campaign videos and websites deliberately combined her relocation with the 2010 murder to weaponise a tragic, emotive backstory for the by-election. ⏱️ The Real Timeline vs. The Campaign Myth 2001 (The Birth): Ogbu flew to Ireland heavily pregnant, delivered her daughter, and immediately flew back to Nigeria. Under the laws at the time, her daughter gained automatic Irish citizenship. 2004 (The Constitutional Impact): This exact legal pathway directly triggered the 27th Amendment of the Irish Constitution, where the Irish public voted overwhelmingly to abolish automatic birthright citizenship. 2005 (The Return): Ogbu returned to Ireland to claim asylum and establish residency. August 2010 (The Political Rally): Despite claiming she lived in permanent fear for her life in Nigeria, she flew back to Nigeria to attend a political campaign rally for her husband, Sunny. October 2010 (The Assassination): Sunny Orji-Ogbu was tragically assassinated in Nigeria five years after she had already settled her residency in Ireland. Late 2010 (The 4-Month Stay): Following the murder, she flew back to Nigeria a third time for the funeral and remained there for four months. 🔍 The Campaign Omission Why did Helen Ogbu and the Labour Party wipe the 2001 trip and her multiple returns to Nigeria completely from her official biography? Evading Political Sensitivity: Omitting 2001 allowed her to completely avoid public scrutiny regarding birthright citizenship and the 2004 referendum. Fabricating the Narrative: Rewriting history allowed her campaign to tell a seamless story linking her migration directly to her husband's death. When exposed, Labour tried to blame a "typo" by a volunteer activist. But Ogbu admitted on the radio she knew about the errors "last year". This wasn’t a mistake it was a calculated political decision to let a useful fiction travel faster than the truth. #GalwayPolitics #HelenOgbu #LabourParty #FactCheck #IrishPolitics #Accountability

55,913 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Lefty lawyer helping an illegal Afghan asylum seeker, despite being on the sex offender's register for a sexual assault that occurred in England however he was granted refugee status because he is a sex offender. His initial asylum claim was rejected, but his lawyers successfully appealed this decision on the grounds that because he enjoys public masturbation and committing public sexual acts deporting him would put him at great at a great risk of "physical violence" if he was deported to Afghanistan. It was also argued that he continues to act inappropriately towards women. He now has full access to the NHS, benefits and free social housing.

Lefty lawyer helping an illegal Afghan asylum seeker, despite being on the sex offender's register for a sexual assault that occurred in England however he was granted refugee status because he is a sex offender. His initial asylum claim was rejected, but his lawyers successfully appealed this decision on the grounds that because he enjoys public masturbation and committing public sexual acts deporting him would put him at great at a great risk of "physical violence" if he was deported to Afghanistan. It was also argued that he continues to act inappropriately towards women. He now has full access to the NHS, benefits and free social housing.

248,610 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Looks like Galway Docs is going to get hammered tonight. Be safe guys and girls

Looks like Galway Docs is going to get hammered tonight. Be safe guys and girls

65,747 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

This is the mentality we are dealing with in Ireland this is Emmanuel Nkencho, brother of deceased George Nkencho calling for the guards who killed George to be murdered. His Words are "I want him dead whoever he was, who shot him, "I want him terminated" "contact terminated" "I want him finished" "when we find him - yummy" I though calling for a Garda to be murdered is an indictable offence, Why was Emmanuel not charged and brought to court ? Is the state afraid to bring charges ?

This is the mentality we are dealing with in Ireland this is Emmanuel Nkencho, brother of deceased George Nkencho calling for the guards who killed George to be murdered. His Words are "I want him dead whoever he was, who shot him, "I want him terminated" "contact terminated" "I want him finished" "when we find him - yummy" I though calling for a Garda to be murdered is an indictable offence, Why was Emmanuel not charged and brought to court ? Is the state afraid to bring charges ?

224,957 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Any word on Helen Ogbu? This clip has been bothering me for some time, and I'd still like a straight explanation of what exactly is being said here. In the video, Helen Ogbu tells the audience: “We all have our children's PPS numbers. We know our children's date of birth. We can register our children.” She then brings up her position as a practising Peace Commissioner, saying that some people present have previously come to her to have documents authenticated. Then she starts another sentence: “I have the capacity…” And the clip is cut. The obvious question is: the capacity to do what? I'm not going to pretend I know what the missing words were, because I don't. But given that voter registration and her role as a Peace Commissioner are being discussed in the same clip, I'd very much like to hear the rest of that sentence and see the complete, unedited footage. There may be a perfectly straightforward explanation. If so, let's hear it. Watch the clip yourself. Listen to exactly what is said and, just as importantly, where it ends.

Any word on Helen Ogbu? This clip has been bothering me for some time, and I'd still like a straight explanation of what exactly is being said here. In the video, Helen Ogbu tells the audience: “We all have our children's PPS numbers. We know our children's date of birth. We can register our children.” She then brings up her position as a practising Peace Commissioner, saying that some people present have previously come to her to have documents authenticated. Then she starts another sentence: “I have the capacity…” And the clip is cut. The obvious question is: the capacity to do what? I'm not going to pretend I know what the missing words were, because I don't. But given that voter registration and her role as a Peace Commissioner are being discussed in the same clip, I'd very much like to hear the rest of that sentence and see the complete, unedited footage. There may be a perfectly straightforward explanation. If so, let's hear it. Watch the clip yourself. Listen to exactly what is said and, just as importantly, where it ends.

28,847 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I am Irish now, he proclaims. A man originally from Syria, who says he came to Ireland from Jordan, claims he has been living in Ireland for nine months. He says he arrived with his wife and three daughters after asking the UN where they should go. According to him, countries such as Sweden and Germany were suggested, but friends in Ireland told him that "everything is very good" here. He also says his family has been provided with housing and that he receives €500 per week. When asked how many came with him, he claims that nine families travelled together, along with around 30 more families from Jordan. He adds that he is Muslim and that Ireland is a safe place for him. Jordan, however, is itself a Muslim-majority country where Islam is the official state religion, with around 92–97% of the population being Sunni Muslim. The policy question is this: if Jordan is regarded as a safe country, why are people travelling over 4,300 km to seek protection in Ireland, and on what legal basis are they being permitted to remain? Jim O'Callaghan TD, can you explain how cases such as this are assessed and why applicants arriving from a country generally considered safe are allowed to stay while their claims are processed?

I am Irish now, he proclaims. A man originally from Syria, who says he came to Ireland from Jordan, claims he has been living in Ireland for nine months. He says he arrived with his wife and three daughters after asking the UN where they should go. According to him, countries such as Sweden and Germany were suggested, but friends in Ireland told him that "everything is very good" here. He also says his family has been provided with housing and that he receives €500 per week. When asked how many came with him, he claims that nine families travelled together, along with around 30 more families from Jordan. He adds that he is Muslim and that Ireland is a safe place for him. Jordan, however, is itself a Muslim-majority country where Islam is the official state religion, with around 92–97% of the population being Sunni Muslim. The policy question is this: if Jordan is regarded as a safe country, why are people travelling over 4,300 km to seek protection in Ireland, and on what legal basis are they being permitted to remain? Jim O'Callaghan TD, can you explain how cases such as this are assessed and why applicants arriving from a country generally considered safe are allowed to stay while their claims are processed?

30,040 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

It looks like Micheál Martin has lost the confidence of die hard Fianna Fáil supporter. Michael Regan speaks passionately in Loughrea Country Galway about the failing of Micheál Martin and his government with the recent fuel protest, cost of living and everything else. Michael Regan is a Irish Fianna Fáil politician and local councillor from Loughrea, County Galway. He represents the Loughrea Local Electoral Area (LEA) on Galway County Council. Things are bad in the Party when grass roots members are speaking up. It looks like the opinion is that Micheál Martin should go. Please have a look a this and please share this.

It looks like Micheál Martin has lost the confidence of die hard Fianna Fáil supporter. Michael Regan speaks passionately in Loughrea Country Galway about the failing of Micheál Martin and his government with the recent fuel protest, cost of living and everything else. Michael Regan is a Irish Fianna Fáil politician and local councillor from Loughrea, County Galway. He represents the Loughrea Local Electoral Area (LEA) on Galway County Council. Things are bad in the Party when grass roots members are speaking up. It looks like the opinion is that Micheál Martin should go. Please have a look a this and please share this.

57,438 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

A blunder? This story circulated for years. As recently as 11 February 2025, Helen Ogbu shared a report about herself from Channels Television a Nigerian news broadcaster headquartered in Lagos which stated that she had fled to Ireland in 2005 after her husband was murdered. That account has now been publicly reported as false. This therefore appears to involve far more than a single accidental remark by Ivana Bacik. The serious question is how this story came to be repeated for years and why Helen Ogbu herself shared a television report containing it on her own social-media account. The public deserves a clear and honest explanation. Who originated the claim, who repeated it without verification, and when did those involved first become aware that it was untrue? Elected representatives cannot dismiss inconvenient falsehoods as mere “blunders” when those claims have been repeatedly circulated and used to shape a public narrative. Accountability must apply regardless of who is involved. The supporting broadcasts, posts and reports are attached so that people can examine the evidence for themselves.

A blunder? This story circulated for years. As recently as 11 February 2025, Helen Ogbu shared a report about herself from Channels Television a Nigerian news broadcaster headquartered in Lagos which stated that she had fled to Ireland in 2005 after her husband was murdered. That account has now been publicly reported as false. This therefore appears to involve far more than a single accidental remark by Ivana Bacik. The serious question is how this story came to be repeated for years and why Helen Ogbu herself shared a television report containing it on her own social-media account. The public deserves a clear and honest explanation. Who originated the claim, who repeated it without verification, and when did those involved first become aware that it was untrue? Elected representatives cannot dismiss inconvenient falsehoods as mere “blunders” when those claims have been repeatedly circulated and used to shape a public narrative. Accountability must apply regardless of who is involved. The supporting broadcasts, posts and reports are attached so that people can examine the evidence for themselves.

17,839 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I do not see anything wrong with what is being said here. If you think differently let me know below.

I do not see anything wrong with what is being said here. If you think differently let me know below.

23,444 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

An Open Letter to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan TD Dublin, 12 September 2026 and the Middle East, April 2024. Different locations, but the same calculated spectacle: the public burning of the American flag. Such scenes have long been associated with hostile anti-American demonstrations and extremist movements abroad. How did this conduct become normalised on the streets of Ireland during a visit by the President of the United States? Minister, This is not about whether people are entitled to oppose President Donald Trump, criticise American foreign policy or demonstrate against the United States. They plainly are. Nor is it a demand that offensive political expression be prohibited merely because many people find it repugnant. It concerns what happened when members of a masked political organisation set an American flag alight in the middle of a crowded Dublin demonstration and whether the State applied the same public-order, fire-safety and criminal-law standards that would govern any other protest. The Dublin demonstration The Irish Times reported that members of Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland appeared as a masked breakaway group dressed in black clothing and dark glasses. According to that report, the group burned an American flag, set off firecrackers, chanted against the presence of US troops at Shannon and used militant republican slogans before dispersing. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland subsequently stated on its own X account that its members had attended the anti-Trump protest in Dublin city centre. Its post included video footage apparently showing the flag burning. This is therefore not an unattributed image or an unsupported social-media rumour. The organisation publicly placed its members at the demonstration and circulated footage of the incident. Burning a flag as an act of political expression is one question. Deliberately setting an object alight and discharging firecrackers within a tightly packed public gathering raise additional questions about public safety and public-order policing. Was the person responsible identified? Was an investigation opened? Did Gardaí assess whether members of the public were endangered? A developing pattern This incident cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. On 29 August 2026, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland publicly claimed that its members had spray-painted the entrance of the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. The door and porch were marked with anti-NATO slogans and the organisation’s initials shortly before the building was due to host NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska. That was not merely disagreement expressed through speeches, placards or lawful assembly. It was the deliberate defacement of property associated with an event the organisation opposed. The organisation has also been publicly associated with other destructive or confrontational actions involving political symbols and buildings, including the burning of flags and remembrance material, the defacement of the Royal British Legion’s Dublin headquarters and the painting-over of street signs bearing Queen Victoria’s name. These incidents display a recurring method: masked participants, militant republican imagery, the destruction of political symbols and direct action against property connected with organisations or events they oppose. Paramilitary-style presentation Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland should not casually be described as “the IRA.” The Provisional IRA is a specific unlawful organisation. AIA is a separate socialist-republican organisation founded in 2017, and I have seen no evidence establishing that AIA is itself proscribed or engaged in an armed campaign. Nevertheless, its conduct and presentation warrant serious examination. Masks, black clothing, dark glasses, disciplined group formations and militant republican language create an unmistakably paramilitary-style appearance. The organisation invokes revolutionary republican traditions, rejects the Good Friday Agreement and uses language centred upon “resistance” to institutions it describes as imperialist. That visual and rhetorical presentation appears calculated to evoke continuity with militant republicanism. It does not prove terrorism or membership of an unlawful organisation, but neither should the State pretend that the resemblance is accidental or meaningless. Political beliefs—even extreme and deeply offensive ones are protected. Criminal damage, unlawful entry, intimidation and conduct endangering the public are not transformed into protected expression merely because those responsible call them political protest. Symbols associated with terrorist organisations There is a further and increasingly disturbing context. People have been filmed walking openly through Dublin carrying flags and wearing banners or headbands apparently displaying insignia associated with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas appears on the European Union’s terrorist list. In Hezbollah’s case, the EU designation applies specifically to its military wing. These legal distinctions matter. Displaying a flag does not, by itself, prove that its carrier is a member of, or providing material support to, either organisation. Nevertheless, these are not neutral emblems of Palestinian identity or ordinary criticism of Israeli policy. They are symbols associated with organisations involved in political violence and included within the European Union’s counterterrorism framework. Their increasingly open display in Dublin alongside masked political formations, firecrackers, flag burning and repeated property defacement raises legitimate public-order and national-security questions. The issue is not whether Gardaí should arrest someone merely for carrying an offensive flag. It is whether the symbols were correctly identified, whether the surrounding conduct crossed any criminal threshold and whether Garda intelligence is examining possible recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support. A domestic legal question Ireland does not appear to have separately designated Hamas or Hezbollah as unlawful organisations under the domestic Offences Against the State framework, despite being bound by the European Union’s terrorist-list and financial-sanctions regime. If that understanding is incorrect, the Minister should identify the applicable domestic designation and explain its practical effect. If it is correct, another question arises: what legal consequences follow when symbols apparently associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations are displayed openly on Irish streets? Ireland should have a clear legal and operational framework for distinguishing merely offensive expression from conduct indicating recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material assistance. If Ireland relies upon EU designations for financial sanctions but has not separately designated these organisations under domestic law, the Minister should explain why and whether that distinction leaves any enforcement gap. The public is entitled to know whether Gardaí possess the powers, training and guidance necessary to respond appropriately when symbols associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations appear openly at demonstrations in Dublin. Questions requiring answers I therefore ask the Minister: • Did An Garda Síochána witness or receive reports of the American flag being burned in Dublin on 12 September? • Was the person who set the flag alight identified? • Were the discharge of firecrackers and the lighting of a fire within a crowded demonstration assessed as public-safety or public-order matters? • Were any arrests made, statements taken or investigations opened? • Did Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland notify Gardaí that its members would attend as an organised group? • Has the defacement of the IIEA building been investigated, and have any suspects been identified? • Have previous acts of property defacement publicly claimed by the organisation resulted in investigation, prosecution or sanction? • Has An Garda Síochána assessed whether AIA has any organisational, financial or personnel connections with an unlawful organisation? • Are its masked formations and repeated direct actions being monitored for possible escalation? • Have Gardaí authenticated footage apparently showing Hamas and Hezbollah symbols being displayed in Dublin? • Is there any evidence of recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support connected with these displays? • What guidance is provided to Gardaí for distinguishing offensive but lawful expression from conduct amounting to support for terrorism? • Does the Minister believe that existing public-order, criminal-damage and counterterrorism legislation is adequate and being applied consistently? I recognise that the Minister cannot direct individual Garda investigations. Nevertheless, the Minister is responsible for justice policy and may seek assurances that the law is adequate and being applied consistently. The issue for Ireland The comparison between Dublin in September 2026 and the Middle East in April 2024 is not intended to suggest that everyone who burns an American flag is a terrorist. It demonstrates something more precise: a confrontational spectacle strongly associated with hostile anti-American movements abroad was deliberately reproduced in Ireland during a presidential visit. Ireland can protect robust political expression without becoming indifferent to organised groups concealing their identities, adopting paramilitary-style presentation, damaging property or introducing fire and firecrackers into crowded demonstrations. The question is not whether these people are entitled to dislike America, NATO or President Trump. The question is whether the State distinguishes clearly between lawful protest and dangerous or destructive conduct and whether that distinction is enforced equally, regardless of the political ideology involved. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland has publicly placed its members at the Dublin protest and circulated footage apparently showing the flag burning. It has also claimed responsibility for defacing the IIEA entrance. The State should now explain what action, if any, followed these incidents and whether Ireland’s laws are adequate to address an organised pattern of masked, confrontational and destructive political activity. Silence is not an adequate public response. Keira Connolly

An Open Letter to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan TD Dublin, 12 September 2026 and the Middle East, April 2024. Different locations, but the same calculated spectacle: the public burning of the American flag. Such scenes have long been associated with hostile anti-American demonstrations and extremist movements abroad. How did this conduct become normalised on the streets of Ireland during a visit by the President of the United States? Minister, This is not about whether people are entitled to oppose President Donald Trump, criticise American foreign policy or demonstrate against the United States. They plainly are. Nor is it a demand that offensive political expression be prohibited merely because many people find it repugnant. It concerns what happened when members of a masked political organisation set an American flag alight in the middle of a crowded Dublin demonstration and whether the State applied the same public-order, fire-safety and criminal-law standards that would govern any other protest. The Dublin demonstration The Irish Times reported that members of Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland appeared as a masked breakaway group dressed in black clothing and dark glasses. According to that report, the group burned an American flag, set off firecrackers, chanted against the presence of US troops at Shannon and used militant republican slogans before dispersing. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland subsequently stated on its own X account that its members had attended the anti-Trump protest in Dublin city centre. Its post included video footage apparently showing the flag burning. This is therefore not an unattributed image or an unsupported social-media rumour. The organisation publicly placed its members at the demonstration and circulated footage of the incident. Burning a flag as an act of political expression is one question. Deliberately setting an object alight and discharging firecrackers within a tightly packed public gathering raise additional questions about public safety and public-order policing. Was the person responsible identified? Was an investigation opened? Did Gardaí assess whether members of the public were endangered? A developing pattern This incident cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. On 29 August 2026, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland publicly claimed that its members had spray-painted the entrance of the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. The door and porch were marked with anti-NATO slogans and the organisation’s initials shortly before the building was due to host NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska. That was not merely disagreement expressed through speeches, placards or lawful assembly. It was the deliberate defacement of property associated with an event the organisation opposed. The organisation has also been publicly associated with other destructive or confrontational actions involving political symbols and buildings, including the burning of flags and remembrance material, the defacement of the Royal British Legion’s Dublin headquarters and the painting-over of street signs bearing Queen Victoria’s name. These incidents display a recurring method: masked participants, militant republican imagery, the destruction of political symbols and direct action against property connected with organisations or events they oppose. Paramilitary-style presentation Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland should not casually be described as “the IRA.” The Provisional IRA is a specific unlawful organisation. AIA is a separate socialist-republican organisation founded in 2017, and I have seen no evidence establishing that AIA is itself proscribed or engaged in an armed campaign. Nevertheless, its conduct and presentation warrant serious examination. Masks, black clothing, dark glasses, disciplined group formations and militant republican language create an unmistakably paramilitary-style appearance. The organisation invokes revolutionary republican traditions, rejects the Good Friday Agreement and uses language centred upon “resistance” to institutions it describes as imperialist. That visual and rhetorical presentation appears calculated to evoke continuity with militant republicanism. It does not prove terrorism or membership of an unlawful organisation, but neither should the State pretend that the resemblance is accidental or meaningless. Political beliefs—even extreme and deeply offensive ones are protected. Criminal damage, unlawful entry, intimidation and conduct endangering the public are not transformed into protected expression merely because those responsible call them political protest. Symbols associated with terrorist organisations There is a further and increasingly disturbing context. People have been filmed walking openly through Dublin carrying flags and wearing banners or headbands apparently displaying insignia associated with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas appears on the European Union’s terrorist list. In Hezbollah’s case, the EU designation applies specifically to its military wing. These legal distinctions matter. Displaying a flag does not, by itself, prove that its carrier is a member of, or providing material support to, either organisation. Nevertheless, these are not neutral emblems of Palestinian identity or ordinary criticism of Israeli policy. They are symbols associated with organisations involved in political violence and included within the European Union’s counterterrorism framework. Their increasingly open display in Dublin alongside masked political formations, firecrackers, flag burning and repeated property defacement raises legitimate public-order and national-security questions. The issue is not whether Gardaí should arrest someone merely for carrying an offensive flag. It is whether the symbols were correctly identified, whether the surrounding conduct crossed any criminal threshold and whether Garda intelligence is examining possible recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support. A domestic legal question Ireland does not appear to have separately designated Hamas or Hezbollah as unlawful organisations under the domestic Offences Against the State framework, despite being bound by the European Union’s terrorist-list and financial-sanctions regime. If that understanding is incorrect, the Minister should identify the applicable domestic designation and explain its practical effect. If it is correct, another question arises: what legal consequences follow when symbols apparently associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations are displayed openly on Irish streets? Ireland should have a clear legal and operational framework for distinguishing merely offensive expression from conduct indicating recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material assistance. If Ireland relies upon EU designations for financial sanctions but has not separately designated these organisations under domestic law, the Minister should explain why and whether that distinction leaves any enforcement gap. The public is entitled to know whether Gardaí possess the powers, training and guidance necessary to respond appropriately when symbols associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations appear openly at demonstrations in Dublin. Questions requiring answers I therefore ask the Minister: • Did An Garda Síochána witness or receive reports of the American flag being burned in Dublin on 12 September? • Was the person who set the flag alight identified? • Were the discharge of firecrackers and the lighting of a fire within a crowded demonstration assessed as public-safety or public-order matters? • Were any arrests made, statements taken or investigations opened? • Did Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland notify Gardaí that its members would attend as an organised group? • Has the defacement of the IIEA building been investigated, and have any suspects been identified? • Have previous acts of property defacement publicly claimed by the organisation resulted in investigation, prosecution or sanction? • Has An Garda Síochána assessed whether AIA has any organisational, financial or personnel connections with an unlawful organisation? • Are its masked formations and repeated direct actions being monitored for possible escalation? • Have Gardaí authenticated footage apparently showing Hamas and Hezbollah symbols being displayed in Dublin? • Is there any evidence of recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support connected with these displays? • What guidance is provided to Gardaí for distinguishing offensive but lawful expression from conduct amounting to support for terrorism? • Does the Minister believe that existing public-order, criminal-damage and counterterrorism legislation is adequate and being applied consistently? I recognise that the Minister cannot direct individual Garda investigations. Nevertheless, the Minister is responsible for justice policy and may seek assurances that the law is adequate and being applied consistently. The issue for Ireland The comparison between Dublin in September 2026 and the Middle East in April 2024 is not intended to suggest that everyone who burns an American flag is a terrorist. It demonstrates something more precise: a confrontational spectacle strongly associated with hostile anti-American movements abroad was deliberately reproduced in Ireland during a presidential visit. Ireland can protect robust political expression without becoming indifferent to organised groups concealing their identities, adopting paramilitary-style presentation, damaging property or introducing fire and firecrackers into crowded demonstrations. The question is not whether these people are entitled to dislike America, NATO or President Trump. The question is whether the State distinguishes clearly between lawful protest and dangerous or destructive conduct and whether that distinction is enforced equally, regardless of the political ideology involved. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland has publicly placed its members at the Dublin protest and circulated footage apparently showing the flag burning. It has also claimed responsibility for defacing the IIEA entrance. The State should now explain what action, if any, followed these incidents and whether Ireland’s laws are adequate to address an organised pattern of masked, confrontational and destructive political activity. Silence is not an adequate public response. Keira Connolly

12,812 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat